User talk:Grant.Alpaugh

Please feel free to leave me a message here. --Grant .Alpaugh 18:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Law School

You don't want to go to law school, you want to go to grad school. More sane people, costs less, and it's ultimately more fulfilling. I've experienced both sides of the coin :) Madcoverboy (talk) 17:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL thanks for the advice! I don't really want to go to law school either, but man being poor for another ten years while I figure out what the fuck I want to do for a living doesn't sound very fun either. --Grant .Alpaugh 18:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

I like the new signature. Were you born on the East side or west side of Cleveland...I live in the suburbs right now. Spencer^T♦^C 12:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

East side Mentor-Concord Township-Painsville area if that helps. You? -- Grant .Alpaugh 12:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I live an inner-ring, side suburb (Cleveland Heights, Shaker Heights, University Heights, Euclid, East Cleveland). I just don't want to disclose my exact location. Spencer^T♦^C 02:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, yeah, but if that's the case I'd take down the coordinates that show your exact location. -- Grant .Alpaugh 03:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care about that...they're not correct at any rate. :D. Spencer^T♦^C 13:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Altering proposals

I know the Calzaghe proposal for ITN is now a dead duck, and that I was mislead by media hype, but I would suggest that if you wish to propose a change to the wording of a headline that you raise it in the discussion. I am not happy that you assume the right to present under my signature a proposal that I did not make, not matter how much of an improvement you believe that to be[1]. Only the editor concerned has the right to change any comment that bears his signature, although I fully accept that this was not malicious on your part. Kevin McE (talk) 11:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tournament Brackets

Would you please direct me to where I can find a category page that lists templates for tournament brackets? NeilCanada (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be a dick :)

Your comments are noted and appreciated even if they aren't always agreed with. --Lemmey talk 02:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was uncalled for. I saw Doug Youvan and Nukeh. Forgive me for that, if you can. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. See you on the page. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More MLS template stuff

Whilst editing the MLS articles, I noticed that all the club's individual templates (e.g. Template:D.C. United) aren't footy box standard. I think they also need to be standardised, so they'll look like Template:Liverpool F.C. (i.e. retaining all the links and colours, but perhaps getting rid of things like the honours list (already mentioned twice in the article)) and fit together with the other footy templates (see here) rathed than leaving the bottom of the page looking a bit messy (e.g. here). I would have just gone ahead and done it as it seems a pretty obvious change to make, but given the recent hulabaloo over the infobox stuff, I thought it was best to check. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is one of the strangest edits I have seen, though highly amusing. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are all individual templates (see {{Everton F.C.}} or {{Red Star Belgrade}}). My main issue really was the fact that the different width templates clash quite badly on the MLS pages, and that when the club templates fit in nicely with the other footybox stuff, it looks much better. I have done one template ({{Miami Fusion}}) because it was already in a (badly formatted) football box situation, which you can see at the bottom of the Miami Fusion article. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ITN

No, I'm not apologising, with respect. Your use of language was robust, and so was mine. But like yourself, I attack the argument, not the person putting it forward. However, no personal offence was meant- but with respect- your argument was specious, for the reasons I set out. No harm done however- the route to enlightenment lies through vigorous dialectic. Badgerpatrol (talk) 21:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and yes, any connotations that could be drawn from my edit summary are most unfortunate and completely unintended- I am most embarrassed. Badgerpatrol (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Badgerpatrol (talk) 08:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prose Timeline

Hi Grant.Alpaugh, some answers to your comments on my talk page:

I only wrote "remove absurd "proseline"-tags by user Grant.Alpaugh". The word absurd refers not to you but to the proseline-tags - which is one of the absurdest tags I've ever seen in Wikipedia. So there is no "insult" and therefore also no need for "apologizing".
Let me remind you that in WP:Proseline we find this introduction: This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it. Therefore I think the tags are unnecessary.
Well, then cleanup the article, if you think it's necessary. I am only interested in the articles content, not its style.
Yes, the criticism section is in a bad shape - but that was the only section which wasn't written by me. I will try to shorten it. --D.H (talk) 09:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since 2 years I write for Wikipedia, but you are the first one who wants to quarrel with me. ;-)

I do not claim "ownership" of the article. If you want to change the style of the articel, please do so or ask someone else. I only said that it's not necessary, because in WP:Proseline we find the above mentioned phrase editors are not obliged to follow it. And therefore I don't like the tags.

Of course the style of the article matters - I only said that it doesn't matter to me. But this doesn't mean that it is "forbidden" for other users to have other views. But it's not enough to simply add tags - I fear that those tags will remain in the article for many months like in other articles.

However, the criticism section had to be replaced. --D.H (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, not being a native English speaker is maybe the reason for my ignorance in respect to the style of the article. But I think the content of the article is at least understandable for all readers. ;-) However, I'm looking forward to your improvements. Regards --D.H (talk) 10:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: The ProseTimeline tags in the sections (1880-1905) and (1906-1912) are enough. There is no need for additional tags at the beginning of the article, therefore I've deleted them. --D.H (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please specify exactly what has to be rewritten. The prosetimeline tags are already in the article. So please stop reverting. --D.H (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for a third opinion at Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements to resolve that problem. --D.H (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. I simply say that the tags are not necessary. However, if the third opinion agrees with you, I will give up - I have no intention to start an edit war. --D.H (talk) 14:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I replaced the cleanup tags with a copyedit tag (I think that's better). If you agree, than I think the "conflict" is over ;-). --D.H (talk) 08:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

08 MLS Season

I turned the orange box into a template. Basketball 110 21:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MLSnet has it KC, Tor, NE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixkick (talk • contribs) 04:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"You bitch more than anyone I've ever seen."

That was an uncivil comment. It would be preferable if you would apologise for making it. At the least, you should strike it. Regardless, this is a formal warning for incivility. Please don't do it again. Play the ball, not the man. --Dweller (talk) 09:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OR tags

If you wish to remove these tags, please ensure you have referenced the sections properly first Fasach Nua (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont want you banned for WP:3RR, I just want you to leave my talk page alone Fasach Nua (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made it clear than I do not want your comments on my talk page, I will continue to delete them unread, if you continue to make unconstructive edits there, I will request intervention Fasach Nua (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

new essay

Over time I thought it was a bit hasty to immediately pursue a new WikiProject. It's still a possibility that I would be happy to pursue aggressively, but I wanted to go through the appropriate motions first. So I came up with an essay and posted it to my userspace for comment. I invite you to comment on it, particularly if there is anything missing or anything with which you don't largely agree. Eventually, I will post it to the appropriate places on and show it to some of the more prominent editors of WikiProject Football, but I would like to polish it a bit before it is given a larger audience. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's one possibility. Truth be told, I don't think the task force has done much, but I could be wrong, and in any case it is worth taking up the discussion with the task force, which I'll do right now on their talk page. --Roehl Sybing (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I'd like to send you an email, but you've not registered an email address. I'd be most grateful if you'd therefore email me, so I can respond. Please go to my user page and click the "E-mail this user" link in the toolbox over <--- there. --Dweller (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I was comfortable posting it in full public view, I wouldn't have bothered asking the above. Never mind. --Dweller (talk) 12:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fasach Nua redux

Grant,

I have almost no time available for Wikipedia today, so I'll be really brief.

If discussion is ongoing at WP:FOOTY, it really doesn't hurt to have the unreferenced tags on the sections until discussion in complete. Let the discussion reach a conclusion, then if the consensus is remove, you can remove them with consensus to back you up.
I agree that by mass re-adding the tags during an on-going discussion, he's now being spmewhat disruptive, whether he's ultimately right or not. But the disruption can be minimized by just allowing the tags while discussion is going on. Be the bigger man.
Please make sure the discussion at WP:FOOTY actually addresses his contention, not just an agreement he's being annoying. i.e. there should be consensus that the sections aren't OR and are properly referenced (is that true?), not just that you guys don't like his mass tagging.
If discussion is done (I haven't checked, nor do I really have much time to do so today), consensus is clearly against him, someone has made this point civilly to FN, and he continues, then I think you're within your rights to go back to ANI and ask for someone to stop his disruption. But it will need to be someone who can look at the discussion and make sure there really was a consensus, and today that person can't be me.
He should really stop mass tagging if consensus is against him, but if he disagrees with you all, he should feel free to pursue other WP:DR methods. I have to say my gut instinct is there should be some WP:V and WP:RS to back up the rosters, so depending on the details (which I don't have a clue about), he may have a point, even if he's making it in an annoying way.
Feel free to copy/link these comments wherever you think they'd do the most good; WP:FOOTY, WP:ANI, his talk page (perhaps someone else should leave the message), WP:3O, etc.

Sorry I don't have more time. I'll see how you're doing tonight. Good luck. --barneca (talk) 13:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. thanks for the vandalism revert. --barneca (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon, Grant, you're picking at scabs. I 100% guarantee he's reading it before deleting; "deleting unread" is a dig at you, and you're falling for it. Again, don't sweat the small stuff. I promise, from the outside looking in, adding this link is small stuff. --barneca (talk) 21:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm starting to lose patience with both of you. No, I won't warn him for being uncivil for saying "deleted unread". You might need some thicker skin, you don't have a fundamental right to make your post stick. I don't know how else to say this. You're making a mountain out of a molehill. You aren't being productive. You're calling him a child, and then resorting the exact same behavior. Stop beating the dead horse. Please. --barneca (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grant, we all get frustrated. I'm frustrated right now too, and probably being blunter than I should be. I'm not blocking you, I'm not blocking him, and if I wasn't worried you would think I'm being patronizing, I would tell you to get up, go have a cup of tea, and come back refreshed in the morning, and resume doing the fun, useful, productive work you usually do. I'll say it one more time, for emphasis. The world isn't perfect. Human interaction isn't perfect. He's being a bit of a jerk. You're being a bit of a jerk. I'm being a bit of a jerk. It's OK. Really. Don't sweat the small stuff, save your ammunition for the big stuff. I have told someone to stay off my talk page before too, because I was not capable of dealing with them in a civil manner at that moment. I appreciated the fact that they didn't post on my talk page any more. I wish I could get this across to you, because it's so clear to me that i have a hard time seeing why you don't see it too: it's OK to just drop this. --barneca (talk) 21:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it makes you feel any better, this: [2] then this: [3] makes him look a little foolish... :) --barneca (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Premiers

Thanks for the info there, wasn't aware of that. I stick by my edits, of course, but I'll try to be more diplomatic with my edit descriptions in future. Thanks again. Falastur2 (talk) 03:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:US Open Cup Bracket

So you want me to completely remove the boxes that say "Quarterfinals", "Semifinals" and "Finals", along with the seed boxes? Do you want any team boxes added so that the template works as an eight-team bracket? – Pee Jay 14:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I really don't have the time to do all that at the minute. If there was already a template around that I could do slight modifications to, I could probably do it, but it's just too much work at the minute. Sorry. – Pee Jay 14:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template help

Hi Grant. Even if I were active at WP:FOOTY just now, I'm not so hot at templates (I have very few template edits - and most of them were making messes and then trying to fix them). User:The Rambling Man is pretty good with them, and is a jolly helpful chap... you could try asking him? --Dweller (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grant, ditto what Dweller said. I'm afraid while I can handle relatively simple templates, your request is a little beyond me, and I'm currently more heavily engaged outside the project nowadays. Sorry I can't be of any help. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ITN

Yes, you do fail to see. ITN as it currently stands is confusing for people with your mindset and we should abolish it. That's my final word on this matter, so no reply required. Cheers, Badgerpatrol (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, Grant. However, I'll say what I like, where I like, provided it's within the accepted policies of this project, which I always endeavour to stick to. Badgerpatrol (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

W-D-L vs W-L-T

Ok, look, I don't want to fight over this anymore. I'm perfectly fine with the W-D-L format. If it's in a FOREIGN country. In the United States, we have our standings in the W-L-T format. Check every last league in this country, including the MLS and USL websites. Every standings page is in W-L-T. I'm just keeping them in line with what the leagues give me, not to mention there's no confusion when looking at them from an American standpoint. --Otav347 (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what ESPN, FSC, Setanta, or whoever thinks about whether it should be W-D-L or not. I do care about what this country thinks, and more importantly, what the leagues participating think. I checked, and MLS, USL, NPSL, and even U.S. Soccer use the W-L-T format, and those are more important than ANY sports site. I'm looking for consistency, and if consistency is arguing for the W-L-T format, so be it. --Otav347 (talk) 23:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, you've pushed for this on the MLS page as well, and from the looks of it, you were in the minority. Not just the minority, but you were the ONLY one supporting it. I don't really understand your logic here, and I like the points others have made on the MLS discussion page. FIFA uses that standard because they're used to it over in Europe. In America, we do things differently, and that includes different terminology. Even the name of the sport itself is different. It's not called "Major League Football", "United Football Leagues", or "U.S. Football", is it? At this point, I won't change the page back to W-L-T simply because the page doesn't need the turbulence. But this discussion is far from over. I'm not giving up on this. --Otav347 (talk) 00:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm moving this discussion to the talk page of the qualifiers.

You're going to have to vote for the format here. Kingjeff (talk) 06:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like how you voted after you got 1 vote of support. I think this was a very brave thing you did. Kingjeff (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that you didn't do what I said? Kingjeff (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have and will continue to update the US Open Cup qualification page as results come in. I still don't agree with you, but I'll leave it as is until the topic is settled. --Otav347 (talk) 00:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets check what it says about major edits. "... there are several things that a user can do to ensure that major edits are performed smoothly. Before engaging in a major edit, a user should consider discussing proposed changes on the article discussion/talk page...". Did you even bother to discuss the change in the format of the table? Do try and tell me that it's a minor edit because you know and I know that the standings in the United States/Canada sports league articles or tables in Europe sports league articles are the biggest part of the article. So essentially you broke a Wikipedia guideline. Good faith can last for so long. Even on Wikipedia. Kingjeff (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get it. Before engaging in a major edit, a user should consider discussing proposed changes on the article discussion/talk page. Kingjeff (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USA Team Page

Grant, I have weighed in on the issue on this page. I see that a rather heated discussion has been going on from both parties, perhaps my input will help to work towards consensus or break up the monotony of the discussion between the two of you, who both appear to be quite passionate in your views. SpartanSWAT10 (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]